The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Revolver Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 12, 2010, 03:25 PM   #26
temmi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 13, 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 531
.480 Ruger is the best choice... if you reload.


I think the ammo would be much harder to find.

BTW I have a .480 Ruger SHR as does my oldest son.


They are wonderful rounds and guns... 1st class
temmi is offline  
Old November 13, 2010, 07:48 PM   #27
Ruger4Life
Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2010
Posts: 53
Though I am new to this forum, I am not new to the 44 magnum. Go ahead, go over the top and spend more money and endure more excessive recoil for no reason. The .454 and the .480 Ruger will give you plenty of each, and the terminal effects of the rounds are almost indistinguishable.
Here are some notes from my experiences:

1. The 44 magnum has terminal effects that are very close to the .454 and .480 Ruger. Research it yourself. Choose a hard-cast bullet in the 310 to 330 range, and with the proper load and bullet placement, it will take down anything that walks and breathes on the face of the planet. It has been proven and documented since the inception of the cartridge to be a terminally efficient round...that is, in the hands of one who loads properly and places the bullet in the kill zone effectively.

2. The 44 magnum is much more cost-efficient than either the .454 or the .480 Ruger. Research the cost of factory ammo. Larger rounds cost more. Then research the cost of handloading components for each of the three rounds. All components are much cheaper when handloading the .44 magnum.

3. There are few....very few...big men with big hands that can handle with ease the excessive recoil of the .454 and .480 Ruger. I am not one of those. There are even fewer small men that can handle these big calibers. If the recoil and price of the rounds does not phase you, power to you! For the rest of the average hunters, .44 magnum is on the top end of both recoil endurability and cost per round. So, to each his own. Just don't talk yourself into using elephant loads to kill sparrows!
Ruger4Life is offline  
Old November 13, 2010, 08:48 PM   #28
EarlFH
Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2010
Location: montana
Posts: 66
The 480 Ruger SRH was never made with a five shot cylinder, except in the Alaskan. The extraction problems were only in the early ones, when they used a different steel, than the later ones. I've never seen a 480 that had problems with the rims interfering with each other, unless some one was using some kind of home made brass.
If you're looking for a 5 shot Alaskan, send me a PM, but it won't be cheap. There were only apporoximately 25 ever made.

EarlFH
EarlFH is offline  
Old November 13, 2010, 09:28 PM   #29
The Terminator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 3, 2002
Location: Georgia, 35 miles Northwest of the armpit
Posts: 946
Years back, I bought a .454 Alaskan. Soon after, I realized that I was experienceing a 30% velocity loss, over a chronograph, when compared to a 7.5" barreled SRH. It was surely shooting a .454, but with nowhere near real .454 power levels. This will hold true for any snub nose fill-in-the-blank revolver.

We tend to buy guns for a particular purpose, but really, "like" is as big of a factor as anything. The Alaskan's are all selling a good bit more on like, than on fitness for a particular purpose.

The dozens of scenarios that we, (me too ) Tend to mentally project for defensive firearms use in the wild, are funny some times, the best one is that a 6" barrel is to slow to bring into action vs a 2.5" barrel. Best -
__________________
The Terminator
John 3:16 (I hope to see You over there.)
The Terminator is offline  
Old November 13, 2010, 09:38 PM   #30
therealdeal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 627
thats why I was going to buy it whether for me, my dad, whomever. I wanted the grizzly stopper. the 6" I have probably would be better if I could get to it quick and just keep shooting as much as I could(well actually I do not have a 454, 480, 500 for that matter though). I am not saying the 454 would stop the grizzly or that I would have time to shoot much, but I was going for a very potent CCW when I was trying to buy the weapon&started the thread. basially I liked the idea of a very powerful snubby. I wasnt sure the 454 was stronger than the 480 at the time and the weapons look real nice online. ps- the mental picture I got terminator was trying to empty the 454cylinder in the gut while lying on my back before the grizzly finished eating my head
__________________
NRA Distinguished Life Member

"Abraham Lincoln freed all men, but Sam Colt made them all equal." (post Civil War slogan)

Last edited by therealdeal; November 13, 2010 at 09:44 PM.
therealdeal is offline  
Old November 14, 2010, 12:34 PM   #31
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,936
If you like the Ruger style and want something more then a 44, you [I]really[/I] need to check out the BFR. You could probably get a BFR in 480/475 for what you'll pay for a Ruger 454 and IMO, I'd rather have the 475 linebaugh than the 454 as a sidearm in grizzly country. Whatever sidearm I chose, I would also carry bear spray.

I own several Ruger revolver's ranging from 22-44 and love them all but not one has the stock action that compares to the my stock BFR. You talk about smooth.
shortwave is offline  
Old November 14, 2010, 01:11 PM   #32
EarlFH
Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2010
Location: montana
Posts: 66
The 480 Alaskan wasn't made to be a hunting revolver. In fact it would probably be illegal for hunting in many states, that have barrel minimum length laws. It is designed to be an easily carried revolver, that you would be likely to have on you, while camping, or fishing, etc. Those large diameter, heavy bullets, even at reduced velocity from the short barrel, would be more likely to stop something that might have you on it's dining list. It would probably be easier to get back on target, for follow-up shots, than the violent recoiling 454 Casull, also.

JMHO,
EarlFH
EarlFH is offline  
Old November 14, 2010, 02:16 PM   #33
sw282
Member
 
Join Date: July 19, 2009
Posts: 65
l am prejudiced against Ruger revolvers. l have always felt them to be overly large and crude for caliber. That is after owning a SBH and Security Six. My bear gun is a Mod 58 S&W in 41Mag. Filled with 250 gr Federal Castcore ammo. lt outpenetrates anything l have ever shot before,except this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-NDjUJlbaw

Last edited by sw282; November 14, 2010 at 02:40 PM.
sw282 is offline  
Old November 14, 2010, 02:37 PM   #34
TinyDee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2009
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 350
I say get the 44. If you have a rifle as you should, it will be rare, indeed, to rely on the revolver. But a 44 will do all you need. That ammo is easier to find too...
TinyDee is offline  
Old November 15, 2010, 02:33 AM   #35
Dan31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2008
Location: Eastside, WA
Posts: 131
Aww just step up to that short barreled .500 S & W Magnum. They also sell a .500 Special load too.
__________________
I was told once "if you don't have anything good to say don't say anything at all"
Dan31 is offline  
Old November 15, 2010, 05:41 AM   #36
Norrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 1, 2008
Posts: 577
Had one in 454. Very snappy recoil. Was using 300-325 grn. loads from corbon.

Accuracy was terrible for me, although it was probably a combination of short sight radius, and massive flinching on my part.

I might have kept it if I was reloading at the time, but I wasn't. Whichever of the 3 cartridges uses the fastest burning powder would probably be the most appropriate choice for the short barrel.

45 colts were very pleasant to shoot out of the alaskan, but caused some dirty chambers that would require cleaning before shooting more 454 (normally high pressure loads would cause the case to stick, but it would still come out; but if it was dirty before firing the high pressure loads, then it be so bad it required a plastic mallet or pliers)
Norrick is offline  
Old November 15, 2010, 07:02 AM   #37
thechamp
Member
 
Join Date: June 2, 2010
Posts: 13
.44 if you want to be "sensible"

454 or 480 if you like pain. lol.
thechamp is offline  
Old November 15, 2010, 03:26 PM   #38
temmi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 13, 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 531
Just for the record... the .480R recoil is not a hard recoil....


I am old and not overly fit and I have no problem with mine...
temmi is offline  
Reply

Tags
alaskan , handgun , redhawk , revolver , ruger

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09577 seconds with 7 queries